New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed

[Revoltingest]

Studies are studies. If you had ever read one, you'd realize academics have a tendency to try to take every possible step to ensure their own bias is minimized so that objective facts can have a chance to come to light. They don't always succeed, but where they fail, their failures are KNOWABLE. IOW, you can look at the methodology and see where they might have gone astray.

The study cited in the OP is a good example of failure. They mistakenly presume some controversial opinions as "facts",
presuming the author, Mr Howard, was accurate. You & Sunstone don't notice it because the "study" confirms your faith,
so you buy into it, hook, line & sinker. Tell me now...honestly...did you guys actually read the original study, or the
AlterNet article's summary of it?

 

[Kathryn]

Excuse me while I wipe the condecension off the glass here. Sheeze! I've been reading through this thread and the ARROGANCE running through it is literally nauseating.

I can hardly see the words through the glop.

 

[Revoltingest]

Excuse me while I wipe the condecension off the glass here. Sheeze! I've been reading through this thread and the ARROGANCE running through it is literally nauseating.
I can hardly see the words through the glop.

Hey! I take pride in my glop.

Here is one reason Fox viewers might "mistakenly" believe the economy is getting worse...
Payrolls Drop in 28 U.S. States, Joblessness Rises in 21 in Labor Setback - Bloomberg

 

[Alceste]

Howard Stern's study clearly shows that Obama voters are hopelessly uninformed.
Even Fox News viewers look like geniuses in comparison. It's true....a study said so!

To be absolutely clear, are you claiming you have reviewed the methodology of Howard Stern's "man-on-the-street" interviews and the study Sunstone posted and found them to be qualitatively equivalent?

 

[Alceste]

The study cited in the OP is a good example of failure. They mistakenly presume some controversial opinions as "facts",
presuming the author, Mr Howard, was accurate. You & Sunstone don't notice it because the "study" confirms your faith,
so you buy into it, hook, line & sinker. Tell me now...honestly...did you guys actually read the original study, or the
AlterNet article's summary of it?

So, according to you, whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is a matter of opinion, not fact? Whether or not "most scientists agree" climate change is occurring is a matter of opinion, not fact? Whether or not TARP was signed under Bush or Obama is a matter of opinion, not fact?

You're being an idiot. I know you're not stupid on account of your ability to write limericks, so I'm going to have to assume that the reason you are unable to process this information is because it disagrees with your own point of view. IOW, you are far more susceptible to the confirmation bias of which you are accusing this team of researchers and those who accept their findings than they are, and your whole line of argument is an exercise in psychological projection.

 

[Alceste]

Hey! I take pride in my glop.

Here is one reason Fox viewers might "mistakenly" believe the economy is getting worse...
Payrolls Drop in 28 U.S. States, Joblessness Rises in 21 in Labor Setback - Bloomberg

And was Obama born in Hawaii?

FYI, the question was phrased as "Do most experts agree" that the economy is getting better, worse, etc. Sorry to inform you this falls under the category of a knowable fact.

 

[Alceste]

On the other hand, give the man's silly opinions, I doubt I am that far off the mark when I say he's never read a scientific survey in his life. I mean, I suppose a person can claim anything on the net. He can even claim to have read more than a dozen scientific surveys in his whole life. But if he don't act like he knows what a scientific survey is, then what are the odds he's telling the truth?

I would have to do some research and get back to you.

 

[Alceste]

Hey! I take pride in my glop.

Here is one reason Fox viewers might "mistakenly" believe the economy is getting worse...
Payrolls Drop in 28 U.S. States, Joblessness Rises in 21 in Labor Setback - Bloomberg

This does not discredit the factual claim that the stimulus program created 2 million + jobs. Do I need to explain why?

 

[Requia]

The study was designed to measure a number of things relating to misinformation and public perception AND ALSO found that those who watch Fox were misinformed on a large number of specific factual questions in a way that directly correlates to their exposure.

The study found that Fox News viewers were misinformed about FNC talking points, that MSNBC viewers were misinformed about MSNBC talking points, and that network news viewers were misinformed about network news talking points.

It does not in any way say that FNC viewers are less informed than MSNBC viewers, and wasn't set up to determine who was the worst, just to establish that a problem exists.

 

[Sunstone]

The study found that Fox News viewers were misinformed about FNC talking points, that MSNBC viewers were misinformed about MSNBC talking points, and that network news viewers were misinformed about network news talking points.

It does not in any way say that FNC viewers are less informed than MSNBC viewers, and wasn't set up to determine who was the worst, just to establish that a problem exists.

Interesting theory, but I think it's more fair and accurate to say the study found that Fox News viewers were comparatively less well informed than consumers of other news sources, and that the more someone watched Fox News, the less well informed they became.

OF course, no news consumers came across as very well informed, albeit MSNBC, PBS and NPR consumers came across as better informed than Fox viewers.

That's my interpretation of the study at least. People will need to make up their own minds about it.

 

[Requia]

You can't make a determination based on the data int he study about which set of viewers is most misinformed, at all, in any way shape or form.

Yes Fox news viewers showed up as the most misinformed on the largest number of questions, but there were also far more questions that related to fox news talking points than any of the other stations represented (to name one of a dozen problems with trying to use the study that way). The methodology of the study just doesn't relate to the question of who is more or less informed.

 

[Kathryn]

I took a harder look at the original OP, the source it quoted, and the study itself.

The source it quoted is AlterNet - hardly an unbiased "news" source itself - a point I find ironic since it's wrath was directed at Fox News. In fact, in AlterNet's mission statement, it clearly states that it is opposed to "right wing news sources."

But on to the study. In order to say that someone is misinformed on a topic, one must have a clear and unbiased concept of what is TRUE about a topic.

Right off the bat, within the first couple of pages of the study, I ran into this problem head on, with the question of unemployment and the question of whether or not the stimulus package had created jobs.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

The study says this:

Stimulus Legislation
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The Congressional Budget Office estimated that by the third quarter of 2010, the stimulus legislation had increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by between two and five million. Other economists concurred that it had had a positive effect on the growth of the economy. However, most voters did not seem to have this information. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Respondents were asked their impression of what "most economists who have studied it estimate" about the economic impact of the stimulus. Only 8% thought that most economists estimate it has saved or created several million jobs. Eighty-eight percent thought that most economists estimated it has only saved or created a few jobs (68%) or even caused job losses (20%). [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Do you see the problem with this question? Here's a chart of the unemployment rate through third quarter 2010:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Now - I understand that the question posed in the study was this: "Respondents were asked their impression of what "most economists who have studied it estimate" about the economic impact of the stimulus."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Based on the REALITY of the persistently high unemployment rate, most INFORMED respondents would assume that PROFESSIONAL ECONOMICS EXPERTS would also know that the overall unemployment rate has not improved significantly at all during 2010. So no matter what the Congressional Budget Office tries to spin, it's hard to prove their assertion that (as the study touts as truth) "the stimulus legislation had increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by between two and five million."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Really? This is the "truth" that most economists supposedly embrace but that most people polled seem to have missed - and according to Alternet, this is because they are watching Fox News?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Come on, man.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]In fact, as I read down each question of the study, I saw a trend. The questions were not so much asking what the respondent's opinion was of topics, but rather what the respondent thought ECONOMISTS' opinions were. In fact, much of the study is based on people's opinions about other people's opinions! Here are some more examples of the questions asked and statements embraced as "truth" by the developers of the study:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"Respondents were asked what they thought "economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years" have concluded."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"The Bureau of Economic Analysis at the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis concluded in September 2010 that the recession had ended in June 2009. "[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Really? The recession has ended? Party at my place![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"Respondents were also asked their perceptions of what economic experts thought at the time the troubled assets program (TARP) was debated and initiated."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Yet another question - not about truth, but about what people think economists think about something. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The study did say this:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Looking at the frequency of misinformation among the consumers of various news sources, one striking feature is that substantial levels of misinformation were present in the daily consumers of all news sources. Even the daily consumers of news sources with the lowest levels of misinformation still included substantial numbers with misinformation. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]But in spite of the evidence that ALL media sources spew misinformation liberally at their consumers, AlterNet's take on this matter was this:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds."[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]How 'bout this newsflash instead - THERE'S NOT AN UNBIASED MAJOR NEWS SOURCE OUT THERE, FOLKS. READ/WATCH/LISTEN AT YOUR OWN RISK.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Requia]

Part of being informed is knowing that the unemployment rate is bunk, used by the government to substantially under-report unemployment. Part of the effect of this is that when real employment levels (IE, people who have jobs, versus people who don't have jobs) goes up, unemployment also goes up, as the improving economy brings people who had given up on finding a job back into the labor force.

I can't seem to get the BLS site to work right now in order to check my figures, but last I heard real unemployment was down to 16%, it was 20% at the height of unemployment, so this is a fairly significant drop in unemployment.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Based on the REALITY of the persistently high unemployment rate, most INFORMED respondents would assume that PROFESSIONAL ECONOMICS EXPERTS would also know that the overall unemployment rate has not improved significantly at all during 2010. So no matter what the Congressional Budget Office tries to spin, it's hard to prove their assertion[/FONT][/FONT]

An informed person would be informed of the fact that most economists and experts, from the CBO to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to the Financial Times of London, estimate the stimulus created or saved jobs. It's a fact that most experts and economists estimate this to be true.

And furthermore, the question has nothing to do with the unemployment rate going up or down. The question is about whether or not the stimulus created or saved jobs, i.e. unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Yet another question - not about truth, but about what people think economists think about something. [/FONT][/FONT]

If you falsely believe economists and scientists and experts are of opinion X, when in fact the experts are of opinion Y, then you are misinformed. That doesn't mean the experts are always right; it just means you are misinformed.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]How 'bout this newsflash instead - THERE'S NOT AN UNBIASED MAJOR NEWS SOURCE OUT THERE, FOLKS. READ/WATCH/LISTEN AT YOUR OWN RISK.[/FONT][/FONT]

Yes but there is certainly a spectrum, and we know which end Fox News is on and we know it's not very close to something like the Washington Post or the Financial Times.

 

[Sunstone]

You can't make a determination based on the data int he study about which set of viewers is most misinformed, at all, in any way shape or form.

Yes Fox news viewers showed up as the most misinformed on the largest number of questions, but there were also far more questions that related to fox news talking points than any of the other stations represented (to name one of a dozen problems with trying to use the study that way). The methodology of the study just doesn't relate to the question of who is more or less informed.

The methodology of the survey clearly allows you to determine, for the issues chosen by the researchers, which viewers are better informed than other viewers. Moreover, it allows you to determine whether heavy viewers of a particular source are better informed on any of the chosen issues than light viewers of the same source. Lastly, the chosen issues are arguably fairly representative of the major issues of the day. So what's to complain about?

 

[Sunstone]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]How 'bout this newsflash instead - THERE'S NOT AN UNBIASED MAJOR NEWS SOURCE OUT THERE, FOLKS. READ/WATCH/LISTEN AT YOUR OWN RISK.[/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

Why do certain kinds of people use caps, Kathryn? Perhaps you can shed some light on that?

At any rate, despite your emphatic use of caps, you seem to have committed a logical fallacy of relevance, here. At issue is not whether all news sources are biased; at issue is whether the viewers of some news sources are comparatively less well informed on certain issues than the viewers of other news sources. There's a difference between those two things.

 

[Sunstone]

Someone was saying the other day that Fox has led the movement in America to decouple policy-making from reality. What do you make of that?

 

[Revoltingest]

This does not discredit the factual claim that the stimulus program created 2 million + jobs. Do I need to explain why?

Please do. And don't forget to take into account job losses from taking the stimulus money from us in the first place.

Asking an economist about how many jobs are created by taking $1trllion from taxpayers, & doling it out to favored interests
is like asking a priest how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Neither does controlled experiments to test his theory/faith.
A typical economist who works for the state does not look at job loss caused by taking of the money in the first place.

Someone was saying the other day that Fox has led the movement in America to decouple policy-making from reality. What do you make of that?

It sounds like someone has a conspiratorial imagination.
(Btw, it seems you're employing the Appeal-To-Spite logical fallacy.)

.....you seem to have committed a logical fallacy of relevance, here.

And now "relevance" is a logical fallacy? Alas....relevance used to be considered a good thing.

At issue is not whether all news sources are biased; at issue is whether the viewers of some news sources are comparatively less well informed on certain issues than the viewers of other news sources.

The gist of the thread has moved beyond your narrow Foxphobic focus. This larger context is more interesting
& illuminating than mere Fox bashing...not that Fox doesn't deserve it, but there's more to life than hating Fox.

Perhaps we should name this new movement. 9/11 conspiracists are "truthers". Obama birth certificate challengers are "birthers".
I hereby christen the obsessive Foxphobe as...."Foxer".

 

[Sunstone]

...the Washington Post...

The Washington Post has been changing, Spinks. It's editorial board is now dominated by neocons and beltway insiders, and there is evidence that its news coverage is now biased to the right on issues like social security, trade, and such. At least that's what I've been gathering from the economist, Dean Baker, and from others.